Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 19

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Quale in topic Biographies and people in categories
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

problem with diagrams

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Diagrams that are not "small" seem to be showing up with the pieces on ranks 1-7 shifted one file to the right. See castling or Fool's mate at checkmate. This seems to affect only ones that aren't "small". Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone working on Template:Chess diagram seems to have made an error. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems to be fixed now. --MrsHudson (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of chess players

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

The following are of doubtful notability.

What do you think? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Vladimir Okhotnik is quite notable. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree about Vladimir Okhotnik. I added him because he is only an IM which normally is not enough. He peaked at a poor time for recieving chess titles. Regards, SunCreator (talk)
Previous discussions have broadly favoured the inclusion of IMs/lesser titled players only if they are notable as national champions or international junior champions and the like. Exceptionally, if they are prominent in other facets of chess, like writing, coaching, then that may also be sufficient. I'd certainly support keeping Okhotnik, who has a few areas covered. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the others, I'd say they all have fair claims except Corbin - playing daft openings and beating a good player is really insufficient notability in my opinion. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we should review many articles on IMs. While some of them even more notable than many GMs, there are a lot whose significance is quite questionable. --MrsHudson (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Even Corbin though has played in many Olympiads. If competing at the Olympic Games is enough for notability, why not the chess equivalent? I think we need to come up with a proper written WP:CHESS guideline for notability as thses kind of queries come up regularly. I would agree with Brittle Heaven that while being an IM alone is not enough, one should look at other factors such as playing strength (several IMs of the past were actually GM level, eg Hartston), competitions won, writing and activities outside chess. Fred Waitzin for example, easily qualifies because of Searching for Bobby Fischer. Pereira is a national champion. Benson is notable as a professional poker player. I do wonder why SunCreator thought the notability of these three in particular could be "doubtful."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Either because they are bottom importance or they have no references and are subject to Blp prod and deletion. I've been through a process of referencing Blp chess players and with the remaining list I thought I'd ask about notabilty first rather then reference them and later have them be deleted as not notable. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There are so many GMs now that I don't think that every GM is automatically notable. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes I think this also, but on balance I feel it helps draw a clean line at GM's as the information in easy to verify(for living players at least). I do think it might be wise to come to some sort or agreement on notability that could be added to WP:NSPORT. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
At present, we don't have articles on all GMs, probably because we don't have editors willing to take the time out to write those articles. However, I think it is worth going a bit out of the way to rescue any GM articles put up for deletion. Certainly, if there is enough sourcing to assemble a reasonably informative stub article on a GM, I would opine to keep it. The number of GMs in the world is a bit less than 1000, which is not an unmanagable number. At the very least, GMs get a fair amount of attention on their national chess scene when they obtain the title. Even in large countries such as the US, I often see new GMs profiled on the front cover of Chess Life. As a rule-of-thumb, GMs are notable, while lesser players (IM or lower) need some further achievements to attain notability. Jeremy Silman once said in an interview that "IMs are weak!", and since Silman himself is an IM, I think we should take his word for it (although "weak" is a relative term). The fact that I, a 1400-rated nothing, have defeated two IMs in internet games also supports Silman's assertion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you look at a lot of the lower GM articles, there are few links to them and they are not read very often. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a small note: according to FIDE records there are 1266 living GMs, with 6 GMs new to the May 2010 FIDE rating list compared to March. About 125 GMs are deceased. Quale (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Six new GMs in 2 months. I think there used to be individual years without any new GMs. Two or three per year was typical. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Just because an article might not be read that often doesn't mean we shouldn't have them - an encyclopedia should be comprehensive. As GM is the highest title a chess player can obtain, it is still a prestigious award. I think GMs should be regarded as automatically notable and we should aim to have articles on them all.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Magesh Chandran Panchanathan

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Just now I created Magesh Chandran Panchanathan article. When I wanted to add it to the Index of chess articles I saw there... Magesh Panchanathan. :-) What can we do now? --MrsHudson (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if there's any precise protocol one should follow, but in the past we've just transferred any unique info from the smaller article into the longer one and deleted the smaller article. It happened with 'Ilya Smirin' and 'Ilia Smirin' I seem to recall. Brittle heaven (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
When I say delete the smaller article, I mean delete the article text and turn it into a simple 'redirect'. Incidentally, does anyone want to comment on the reproduction of a full GM-annotated game? Is this a breach of copyright, or permissable provided it's credited (which it is)? Brittle heaven (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think there is a copyright violation here. But of course, I am not sure. --MrsHudson (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Moves are not copyrightable but analysis and annotation is. I haven't looked at this particular one, but if it is an exact reproduction of someone's annotation, that is a copyright violation. If it is reworded it is probably OK. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The article mentions the author of analysis (Lubomir Kavalek) and there is an external link to the newspaper. Is this still considered a copyright violation? --MrsHudson (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It might be. It would be best to ask somewhere like Village Pump to get better advice. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea but I am not sure how useful is to have annotated games on a general Encyclopedia anyway.  Dr. Loosmark  19:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I merged two articles into one and redirected the Magesh Panchanathan to Magesh Chandran Panchanathan as the latest is of much better quality and has correct title. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Loosmark that an annotated game is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It should be removed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with annotated games. We have hundreds of such articles. --MrsHudson (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think they're appropriate in biographies, which should be about a person's life. I would be surprised if any of our GA or FA bios have them. If the annotations have not been published before then it's original research, and if they have then it's a breach of copyright.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. If this logic is correct, then Wikipedia can not exist, since any article in it either contains an original research or violates copyrights. We all know how it works. Same with the annotated games. They can simply be modified and supported with appropriate citations. By the way, we have good articles that contain annotated games and nobody has complained about them. --MrsHudson (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What is a "technical draw"?

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I thought that a "technical draw" was a draw by stalemate, threefold, 50-move, or impossibility of checkmate, i.e. not by agreement. I was reading in a book by Evans today that a technical draw is only when checkmate is impossible. Is that correct? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Common usage(so not book term) is that technical draw equal theorical draw. So not as Evans states. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
In either case, it is wrong at Draw (chess)#Terminology (and that is my fault). I'd like to clear up exactly what a "technical draw" is. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Evans on Chess, page 12, defines it as when checkmate is impossible and gives examples of king vs. king and king and minor piece vs. king. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm I always thought that a technical draw is a position where the stronger side cannot win no matter how good it plays - if the weaker side plays correctly.  Dr. Loosmark  15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
That agrees with SunCreator above, but is there a reference for it? I checked several books, and the only source I've found is the one by Evans. Unless a source (or two) for that is found, I think it will have to go with what Evans says (or be removed). Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Evans a reliable source? He's not exactly known for diligence in his chess writing.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Right now it is the best I know for the definition of a technical draw. Perhaps it should be omitted from Draw (chess)#Terminology because it doesn't seem to be used that frequently and the definition doesn't seem to be clear. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with doing that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. And this quote about grandmaster draws at draw by agreement doesn't make sense: "Unless you are of the calibre of Botvinnik – and who is – you cannot hope to play at full power day after day. The technical draws are a necessary means of conserving energy. " Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Alexander Alekhine's name

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Someone has put a {{fact}} on a note at the top of the lead of Alexander Alekhine, and I agree per WP:V. I've searched for over and hour, and look through my meagre set of books, and got nothing. From most important to least, I'd love get citations for: --Philcha (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  • That "Alekhine" is A's French of A's preferred pronunciation.
  • How the rest of A's family pronounced the name. I remember a story that A. dislike that pronunciation because he thought it sounded Jewish.
  • That "Alechjin" is the common transliteration in N Europe, e.g. in Germany.
  • Any other languages?
  • International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) transliteration of at least "Alekhine".

--Philcha (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear on your questions. Do you mean the spelling or the pronunciation? this edit it seems to me questions how other members of his family pronounce the family name. I have no source for that :( Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
In practice the spelling and the pronunciation/intonation/phrasing are linked, as in "RP"/"BBC" English. --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest as a start this article at Chess Cafe by Hans Kmoch, which states "'Alekhine' became the only correct spelling in the Latin alphabet when its bearer took French citizenship" and "Alekhine used to get angry if his name was pronounced Al-YOH-khin, the way Russians sometimes pronounced it. The correct Russian pronunciation, he said, was Al-YEH-khin, explaining that the name was derived from that of a tree (‘alyesha’) that grew abundantly near one of his family’s estates. ‘Al-YOH-khin’, he claimed, was a Yiddish distortion of his name, like Trotsky for Troitsky or Feigl for the German Vogel. But strangely, no-one whom I ever heard pronounce the name Al-YOH-khin was Jewish.""--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's great! Aljechin (if I remember it right) would be good as well, but Kmoch's story what I really wanted! --Philcha (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Edith Keller-Herrmann is dead

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Edith Keller-Herrmann has died on May 12th, according to the website of the German magazine Schach. http://zeitschriftschach.de/aktuell/aktuell.htm --Constructor 20:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Toolbox

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Since mid-2008 I've developed a set of tools and techniques that I've used in editing and reviewing articles - including stuff I've found hard to find from WP "official" sources. You might want to copy it from User:Philcha#Tools to somewhere in WP:Chess: userboxes don't live for ever; and your project should update your copy from the experiences from its members. I hope you find this helpful. --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think the toolbox is useful, perhaps you can help me with Capablanca, where I need citations to resolve 3 {{fact}} tags:

  • "In fact, only Marshall, Lasker, Alekhine and Rudolf Spielmann won two or more serious games from the mature Capablanca, though in each case, their overall lifetime scores were minus (Capablanca beat Marshall +20 -2 =28, Lasker +6 -2 =16, Alekhine +9 -7 =33), except for Spielmann who was level (+2 -2 =8)" in Capablanca#Playing_strength_and_style. --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Of top players, only Keres had a narrow plus score against him" in Capablanca#Playing_strength_and_style. It's easy to see that Keres had a plus against Capa, but difficult to show that only Keres had a plus.--Philcha (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In Capablanca#Influence_on_the_game, "Botvinnik credits Capablanca as the first with this insight" (that queen and knight was usually better than queen and bishop). --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Capa did say that about Q+N vs. Q+B - I think I can find a reference. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It is discussed by Glenn Flear, pages 422-23 of Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics. He says that the idea did come from Capa, but he couldn't find any Capa game supporting that idea. And he says that there is no difference statistically. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought I had seen it in Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca, but I couldn't find it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be debate between sources about whether Q+N is better/same as Q+B. If I cannot get one about "Botvinnik credits Capablanca as the first with this insight", I'll have to cut that phrase. Thanks for looking. --Philcha (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
In Capablanca's A chess primer, page 202. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Page history

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Yesterday I moved the page Nonna Karakashyan to Nonna Karakashian, because it seemed to me that FIDE's spelling is preferable. A bit later the author of the article Yu783 undid my move by inserting text from Nonna Karakashian to Nonna Karakashyan, and then created a redirect. As he explained, the spelling "Karakashyan" is more recognizable. I did not mind, but the problem is the following: the page history is distorted and now I became... the author of Nonna Karakashyan article, which was actually started by Yu783. Could anyone please advise me what to do? --MrsHudson (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be complicated... But thanks anyway. --MrsHudson (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like more work than it warrants; if the history is slightly distorted, it doesn't seem such a big issue to me, particularly on a relatively minor personality in chess. Regarding name changes like this, I'd normally be very sceptical of editors moving away from the FIDE version, but it does seem justified in this case, as a Google search gives 341 versus 4 in favour of 'y' and the person herself uses 'y' on her personal website. One name that I think still needs changing is Genrikh Gasparyan - to Genrikh Kasparyan. On the article's discussion page, you'll see some explanation and unopposed support for the move. Please feel free to make this move, if you agree with it. I'm not that familiar with the "move" function, so I've not attempted it. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I've gone ahead and made the request; an admin should be able to work it out.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you and just now moved the page Genrikh Gasparyan to Genrikh Kasparyan. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of him, his full/birth name in the info box is in Armenian. Wouldn't it be better in English? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes it should definitely be in English.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
And when moving, remember to update index of chess articles. This needs to have the actual article title (not a redirect) so that "related changes" will show changes to the article. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I recommend User:Anomie/linkclassifier be used for ease of identification such articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Diagram Uniformity

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

With fairy pieces, I find that several share letters. For example, the S is used for both the ship, and the inverted knight. Is there a possibility of making this uniform? I can make any required pieces, but most are available. I've started such a plan on my userspace here, but I'm not sure where to go, or to make it useful for diagram creators. NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 12:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance but what are the ship and the inverted knight?  Dr. Loosmark  15:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A change you made may have messed up white dots in small diagrams. See your change to queen and pawn versus queen endgame. What you changed to x is supposed to be a small white dot. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't my change, although it is somewhat related to this. I have uploaded the file needed, so should now be fixed.
Loosmark, I was in completely the same boat until a week or two ago! The inverted knight is sometimes used as a "unicorn" in some games, or a "nightmare", and is represented, as the name suggests, by a knight rotated 180 degrees. The ship is a piece used in Chaturaji. There are many more fairy pieces that have diagram representation, including the archbishop, champion and various others, as can be seen on this diagram. I'm wondering if we can just rearrange the clashes as I've suggested (or otherwise) and provide a complete set, with room for others at a later date, should we need them. NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 16:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. It would probably be good to ask at the chess template. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately we don't seem to have many fairy chess people here. Maybe one of the frequent contributors to fairy chess piece could help. Quale (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It would appear that there isn't anyone deeply concerned with this, so as long as I fix any errors these switches would cause, would anyone object? NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 12:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You probably should ask at Wikipedia:Village pump about whether or not to do it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Aron Nimzowitsch

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The article says that quote "His works influenced numerous other players, including Savielly Tartakower, Milan Vidmar, Richard Réti, Akiba Rubinstein, Bent Larsen, and Tigran Petrosian, and his influence is still felt today." There is no doubt that Nimzowitsch's work influenced many top players however I am surprised to see Vidmar and Rubinstein mentioned there. Weren't those two classical style players more influenced for example by Steinitz and Tarrasch?  Dr. Loosmark  23:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That needs an inline citation. In fact the whole "Legacy" section needs more citations, and some the hyperbole could be toned down too (eg. he "shattered" assumptions that were "thought to be irrefutable laws of nature, like gravity."}--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and in general I have noticed that many biographies of chess players on wikipedia are, how shall we say, lets say that the quality isn't exactly stellar and they would need lots of work. Unfortunately seems we simply don't have the man power to improve them.  Dr. Loosmark  16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I see a lot of new articles about obscure players but not so much work on existing articles about more important players. But each to his own.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
How many of the obscure players are nominated for DYK? --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Kotov syndrome merged

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone merged Kotov syndrome in to his article but left the project tag on the talk page and left it in index of chess articles. If this merge is to stand, those need to be fixed. How do editors feel about the separate article? (I think Kotov syndrome is also in the glossary of chess.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Obolentseva

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should Alexandra Obolentseva be kept or deleted? She was the 2009 Russian girls under 8 years old champion. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Strikes me as borderline, but I'd probably keep - mainly because of our general poicy of allowing national champions (and whilst she's very young, the age is a recognised category at the World Youth Ch.). Also, Russia is one of the keenest chess playing nations, so she probably is genuinely quite strong and improving fast. My other thought is that new chess prodigies can spark a lot of interest throughout the chess world and people often consult Wikipedia in this regard, so it would be a shame if we didn't carry at least some information. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

interesting situation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just for fun, here is an interesting situation. In this game Fifty-move rule#Lputian vs. Haroutjunian Black was two pawns down and defended well for 55 moves. During those 55 moves there were no captures or pawn moves. Then he made a bad move and resigned on the next move - when he could have claimed a draw by the fifty-move rule! He must have forgotten about it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Any and all, please look in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination). Thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

pronounce Elo?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

At Elo rating system talk page, a reader asks how to pronounce Elo. I don't know (other than Eee-low). What is it? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's how I say it. Btw Elo does not direct to Elo rating system. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rook article

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Trouble on rook (chess) again. I've reverted it twice. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it, and left a friendly note on the users talk page. I don't know if the user is the same as the IP you reverted, but it seems pretty likely, in which case it was rather sporting of him to create an account instead of hiding behind an IP. Winston365 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's possible (maybe even likely) that a newcomer to the page wouldn't realize that this has been discussed before at length on the talk page. Someone new would also possibly not be aware that the language used currently is supported by reliable sources, and that whatever they might know to be true that contradicts the article needs to be referenced before it can be used. Winston365 did a good job trying to explain that, so we'll see what happens. Quale (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I suspect it is likely. The fact that he created a user account, did post on the talk page, and stopped reverting after 3RR was mentioned makes me think he was acting in good faith. WP:BITE applies here. I have to admit (although I wouldn't change the article) that the "non-players" wording the OCC uses does sniff a bit of the No true Scotsman fallacy however. Winston365 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That is the phrase that seems to irk people (but it is directly from the Oxford Companion). I would be open to changing it a little. But at one time it said that castle was not used by players, and that was objected too also. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
At one time it said that "castle is no longer used" but people said "I use it". How about replacing the "non-player" wording with "The term castle has been obsolete for decades." Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It's true that some people seem to take the "non-players" phrasing rather personally. I don't really understand this. Would they be happier if Hooper & Whyld had said "no literate chess player"? I think "non-players" in the context they used it is synonymous with "chess illiterates". If the "non-players" bit is to be replaced it should be with wording very close to that used by a reliable source. Part of the problem may be that many people aren't aware of the vast chess literature. We haven't seen this attack recently, but a few years ago there were somewhat persistent people claiming "chess is pokémon". A few people made even dumber claims, such as claiming that "Star Craft probably has as much written about it as chess" (apparently because it is played professionally in South Korea). Quale (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

European Individual Chess Championship

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I propose removed or reducing the coverage of the Nazi tournament from 1942 in the European Individual Chess Championship article. Of course that tournament wasn't really a European Championship other in that the Nazis found the title "European Championship" fancy.  Dr. Loosmark  19:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Category name

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The start class articles of mid importance is showing up as Category:Start-Class chess articles of ¬-importance. I don't know how to fix it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wesley So

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've had to revert three times today on Wesley So, so someone else please watch this article. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal has been blocked for six months. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Priyome

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It would be helpful if some experienced chess people took a look at the new article priyome. The article claims this is a Russian term for a chess concept. I actually don't doubt that this is true, but I don't think that it is an article in the English wikipedia because I am not aware of this term ever being used in English. If you have an opinion whether pro or con, please visit Talk:priyome. Quale (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Chess books

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask this question, but I was redirected here from the mathematics reference desk. Would anyone be able to recommend some good chess books for self-study? I consider myself a competent player, but everything I've learnt was from playing and I figure a more formal education would both improve my game and be an enjoyable way to spend some of my free time over the summer.74.15.137.192 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you already read any book about chess?  Dr. Loosmark  17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Given that information, I'd recommend the "Winning Chess" series by Yasser Seirawan, a seven-book series. Start with "Play Winning Chess" (you can probably skip or skim the first chapter). If that goes OK then both "Winning Chess Tactics" and "Winning Chess Strategies". To go beyond that "Winning Chess Openings" and "Winning Chess Endings". I haven't seen "Winning Chess Combinations", but maybe it could be the sixth one. "Winning Chess Briliancies" would be optional at the end. See Yasser Seirawan#Books. I think that is appropriate for a teenager on up. For a bit younger, probably A World Champion's Guide to Chess, by Susan Polgar. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, there is a lot of chess information on Wikipedia. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Reading classics like Nimzowitsch's "My System" or Reuben Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" can't hurt either.  Dr. Loosmark  23:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Plus one for My System. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
My Ststem is hard to read - I'd go with Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by John Watson instead. I love Basic Chess Endings but I would start with an easier one for endgames. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the great suggestions guys! Regarding Seirawans's books; what level are they geared towards? My dad gave me a Chess for dummies book, and...not to sounds arrogant or anything, but it was pretty lame, and a bit insulting to my intelligence (I do NOT consider myself a dummy :) ). This was my first and only exposure to chess books, so I don't know that much about chess, but I would still like something challenging. 74.15.137.192 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Related question: is there a good (free) site to play chess on? 74.15.137.192 (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Try http://www.freechess.org/  Dr. Loosmark  17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as Seirawan's books, I have seen the first one (Play Winning Chess) but I don't have it. I think it assumes that you know the basic rules of chess (be sure of that because some people think that they know them when they don't). I don't know whether it covers the basic checkmates or not. (My advice: don't spend time learning bishop and knight checkmate yet and you don't need to put much effort into the two bishop checkmate - these rarely come up.) If you go through the first five Serawan books I recommended, it will take you through casual play, club-level play, and into tournament-level play. You don't need to know everything in Winning Chess Openings and Winning Chess Endings to get to tournament level. I would say pick and choose among the openings. I think you need to be at least an interested teenager to read the books in the series. They are pretty easy reading, but not condescending to a beginning adult. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Recap of Seirawan books:
  • Play Winning Chess to start - may want to skip or skim some of the first part
  • Winning Chess Tactics and Winning Chess Strategies - these sort of go hand-in-hand, and can be read together. But if you want to do one at the time, tactics before strategy. These will take you a long way. They are on about the same level, but cover two different aspects of chess.
  • Winning Chess Openings and Winning Chess Endings - these also sort of go hand-in-hand, but are complementary. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Business chess – Do we really need spectacular chess?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Excuse me for my English. I'm using Google translator from Russian. I am the author of “Business chess” and one of the authors of a new article about chess in Wikipedia - Business chess.

In this connection I would like to discuss two issues.

1. Do we really need spectacular chess, suitable for TV broadcast?

2. What will happen with chess in the near future? (See article Sports Business Games and the Third Revolution in Sport.).

Those wishing to discuss these issues please respond. Ovakim (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I have my own views on the subject, and it is an interesting topic to discuss, but Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. The discussions on talk-pages relate to whether, and if so how, we write encyclopedia articles, and so the discussions here are focused differently than you would on a "regular" web forum. The questions you pose here are better suited for the boards at chess.com [1] or other similar chess websites, and I think you will get more interesting responses there. Thanks for your article on business chess by the way! Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for photographs and images

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of chess biographies if it contains the template(s) {{Chess-WikiProject}} , {{WikiProject Chess}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridit Nimdia

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

There is an article about this kid, who supposedly became the world's youngest rated player at about age 4.75 (with a walloping 1283 rating). He is also on the List of world records in chess for this supposed distinction. I don't see how it can be proved that this kid is the youngest ever to have a rating, and in any event this doesn't strike me as notable. Thoughts? Krakatoa (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree. The article says he is currently competing in the World School Chess Championships U-7 division. Normally even the winner wouldn't automatically get an article--it looks like he placed 2–3 (a very good result I think at age 5).[2] That link does show him as the only player in the U-7 to have a rating. There are some sources in the article which seem OK, so perhaps he meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. It seems too soon for an article to me, and he should certainly have plenty of time to become prominent in the chess world if that is in his future. Quale (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
We an article on a five year old chess player?! I count myself as an "inclusionist" but this is too early even for me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
A rating of 1283 is actually very good for a person that age, but it can be misleading. You can play in a tournament with only higher-rated players and lose every game and get a rating like that. But if it is accurate it shows potential. However, I agree that it is too early to have an article. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1283 Elo (79 BCF) is actually quite poor. It's only marginally above knowing the moves of chess. The only point of interest is the way chess ratings are now allowed even at the weakest level.. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
For comparison Tran Gia Thu Pham born the same year, a girl, has a respectable Elo of 1808. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
A rule of thumb is that 100 points times your age is good. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Tran Gia Thu Pham. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This page has been blanked because of a possible copyright violation. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The copyright can be corrected. The article contents however is dubious - or at least the sources don't add up. According to http://www.mid-day.com/sports/2009/sep/300909-Ridit-Nimdia-Youngest-chess-player1.htm FIDE "released the official rating list this month." (September 2009) and it later explains "celebrated his fifth birthday on September 23.", the year from FIDE was 2004. So he wasn't 4 years 270 days but 23 days from his fifth birthday(assuming FIDE list was out 1st of September). Another reference http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_ridit-rules_1294126 claims "Ridit played in his first Fide tournament in Goregaon in May this year and beat a rated player right away. He was aged four years and 270 days then and thereby became the world’s youngest player to defeat a rated player.", this claim(verified how???) of course is somewhat different then being the youngest rated player. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right that he didn't become a rated player at 4 years and 270 days. If I am reading Nimdia's rating history correctly, he won one game out of four played in his first rated tournament, the 1st Prabodhan International FIDE Rating Chess Tournament 2009 held on 20 May 2009. He has three more rated games in a tournament on 20 June 2009, and three more in the State Selection 2009 tournament of 31 July 2009. I think this totals 10 which combined with a win should be enough for a FIDE rating. Although the ratings list wouldn't be released until September, in a sense he "became" a rated player in late July 2009 when he would have been about 4 years and 310 or so days old. This might still make him the youngest player ever FIDE rated although this is hard to verify and I'm not convinced that this is especially significant. It might rate a mention in List of world records in chess (it seems the kind of thing that Guinness World Records might note) but I don't think it merits an article. Quale (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Classical World Chess Championship 1995

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

The article should be moved back to its correct title "PCA World Chess Championship 1995". The article was moved by user:Brendanwinter back in October 2006. The term "classical" was invented much later and I recall Kaspy was critical of it.  Dr. Loosmark  22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are correct. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is a mess. World Chess Championship uses "Classical" for the four non-FIDE championships in 1993, 1995, 2000, and 2004. Only the first two were PCA. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that the article should be moved, but it would be OK. As Bubba73 says, we have to be careful. I reverted a recent edit of World Chess Championship that called all those PCA championships, but half of them weren't. Quale (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
There are other articles that refer to them as "classical". I don't know what to do, except call them "non-FIDE", and that would be a very bad title. Was "Classical" used at the time? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily have to be the name used at the time, as long as it's what it's called now. Sometimes the terms we use for things today aren't the same as what they were originally called. In this case, I think a good argument could be made (and is being made) that PCA would be a better title, although putting them all under the "Classical" umbrella is also attractive. Kramnik might think that's reasonable, as I think this terminology is sometimes credited to him. Quale (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The first two may have been called "PCA", the third one "Braingames", and maybe the fourth one was called "classical", but I'm not at all sure. I'll go either way, but it will be nicer to have a term for the non-FIDE ones, and "classical" seems to be it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the term "Break-away" got used a lot in the earlier days. It's a term that quickly informs the non-expert reader roughly what happened - 'in a nutshell'; yet it also seems a little informal for use in such an important title. A question - is the word "Classical" in this context just a reference to the playing rate (time limits), or a reference to the traditional route taken, i.e. an unbroken line of champions who defeated each other? Maybe I'm the only one confused over this? Another connotation that "Classical" bestows, is a feeling of 'legitimacy' (compared with say, Break-away). That might be fair enough, depending on your viewpoint, but didn't Kasparov later concede that he shouldn't have done it? It's a tricky one - PCA / Braingames etc. may be the more technically correct path, but I can also sympathise with the argument that it is messy and will confuse the non-expert reader. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
As there was no other world championship that year, why not simply call it World Chess Championship 1995?Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Well done Pawnkingthree, I was going to suggest World Chess Championship 1995 also. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Two points:

  1. I think simply "World Chess Championship 1995" is not adequate because there were two "world champions" at the time. We have the others in that period named "FIDE World ..."
  2. "classical" - To reply to Brittle Heaven above, I think "classical" refers to the method of a match between the current champion and a challenger, rather than the tournament system FIDE went to for a while. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to identify the series in order to distinguish between the co-existent world champions. Whether "Classical" refers to classical format (challenger vs champion) or classical time controls, neither of which were adopted by the FIDE (official, but daft) knockout tournaments, probably doesn't matter; more importantly, the word works in either sense. Certainly, it's a contender and may be the most generic and pragmatic choice. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thought. Official/Unofficial? Like it or not, the FIDE version was, after all, the official version. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, but I wouldn't want to reduce the non-FIDE title to the status of the pre-1886 world championship, which was really informal. The non-FIDE championships were more formal and organized, and at first they had Kasparov, who was clearly the best at the time. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FAR (Feature Article Review for chess)

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I have nominated Chess for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed many of the things, but I can't do them all. The article doesn't need that much to stay FA, mostly work on references. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems much of Chess problem has been summarised into a section in Chess, but neither are referenced. Anyone with Chess compostion books, please add references. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have anything on chess composition, except what is in the encyclopedias. In addition, I've addressed about all of the points in the FAR that I can. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I've just sent messages to four previous Chess contributors. Dweller, Ioannes Pragensis, Andreas Kaufmann and Camembert Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is now in the concluding phase. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles on individual opening traps

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

There are several short articles on individual opening traps. I saw Bogo-Indian Defence, Monticelli Trap and recommended merging it into the main article. But there are several others, such as Ruy Lopez, Tarrasch Trap. Both of these have (short) entries in the Oxford Companion. There are other similar articles such as

Should these short articles

  1. be kept as they are
  2. merged into the article about the opening
  3. merged into a new article chess opening trap? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
My own preference would be to keep all traps and variations (some traps evolve from specific variations of course) grouped together. I can't see the logic of grouping the variations under the 'mother' opening, but not the traps. If they are not merged together, then navigation becomes a chore (although you could minimise the pain by setting up reciprocal 'See Also' links between the various related articles). Brittle heaven (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Another point I should have made - traps, like variations, often have a myriad of alternative names used by people of different generations or on opposite sides of the pond, or whatever. So if you're searching for it by an obscure name, or can't remember the name, then it's highly likely you'll end up looking at the opening article. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, there is already an article List of chess traps. A new article Trap (chess) may however be a good idea to explain the concept generically and provide a gateway to other avenues. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what your preference is for those articles. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. A summary of what I had in mind would be to (1) subsume individual traps into their respective opening articles (2) delete List of chess traps and (3) develop a replacement article Trap (chess) which describes what a chess trap (also trappy move) is, gives some simple examples, explains the relationship with other concepts like Swindle (chess), Stalemate, Zugzwang etc., lists any notable literature on the topic and lists individual traps, i.e. with a link to the relevant sub-head within an opening article. Golombek, Brace, Hooper & Whyld all have articles on 'Trap' (or similar), so there is hopefully plenty of material to kick things off. Anyone have any thoughts or counter-suggestions? Brittle heaven (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Chess articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Chess articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably copvio in new article

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Any idea where the text in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavao_Keglevi%C4%87_(Croatia)_-_Peter_Markland_(England)_1975 comes from? The editor's other articles, eg House of Keglević don't show this command of English and I've found some copyvio in at least one other article. Sorry to use an url, but copy and paste doesn't seem to work for this article title. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people of Chess WikiProjects

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  1. David S. Goodman
  2. Eugenio Torre - I added two general references. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. Fred Waitzkin
  4. Gary Benson
  5. George Dean
  6. John Roycroft
  7. Leroy Dubeck
  8. Nicholas van der Nat
  9. Rafael Leitão
  10. Rúben Pereira

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Unreferenced_BLPs Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Ivo Donev. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for notability

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Sometimes playing in an Olympiad is considered enough to make a player notable. This year there are 1300 players in the Olympiad, so I think that criteria is too weak - it admits too many people.

I want to throw out two possible criteria for consideration:

  1. The person has played a game that was analyzed in a book or journal, it isn't one of the amateur games submitted to Chess Life, and the player didn't lose.
  2. The person has a game in ChessGames that they didn't lose. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that "Playing in an Olympiad" is too weak a criterion, not so much because of the figure 1300 (1300 chess player bios doesn't actually strike me as being so many), but because the strength of these players can be below a 2000 rating level, where chess is merely a pastime.
I feel that the two suggested criteria set the bar too low as well. Several opening books, especially those on more obscure openings, and the chessgames.com database, contain several games between players of FM strength and lower. The coverage is then of a particular opening variation, and the name of the player who played the game is of secondary interest. If "journals" include the chess column of newspapers, then I could get an article. The August 12 chess column in Bergens Tidende this year featured this game which I won. (OK, I'll admit that I included the last comment just to get yet another opportunity show off the rook sacrifice for which the annotator awarded me a double exclamation mark. :-))
With that said, one of the chess bios I initiated, Abdul-Razzaq Ahmed Taha, arguably derives most of its notability from a game and participation in the Olympiads. Nonetheless, if his game is "part of the chess education of all Iraqi players", I think that lends some credibility to his notability. Also playing top board at several Olympiads places him near or at the top of the Iraqi chess hierarchy.
I think chess players are subject to the regular WP:BIO criteria, and WP:V also applies, so some reliable sourcing is needed. With that said, there are some rules which I go by when assessing whether a chess player should be included:
  • I almost always vote keep on a verifiable grandmaster biography; and if I see one up for deletion, I think it is worth the trouble to actively search for source material to support the article. While regular GMs no longer comprise the absolute world class of chess players, they are still very strong on the national level and usually the subject of sufficient press coverage, at the very least locally.
  • I am usually willing to keep national champions if the player's championship can be verifiably sourced. This is a bit more iffy, because in a small countries without much of a chess culture, even champions are likely to be for the most part amateurs.
  • If the player has published chess books, or in journals such as New in Chess, he can be assessed by WP:AUTHOR criteria. Someone who publishes a book which gets a professional review has a real claim to notability. (In the Lilov AFD, I was not too certain about the person's objective notability because he had published some DVDs which received such reviews, my delete vote was largely because the article was promotional in nature.)
Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to do with the topic but... Greetings for your victory, Sjakk !! SyG (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The The person has a game in ChessGames that they didn't lose. is in my opinion completely inadequate criteria for at least two reasons:
1) as far as i remember they include games where at least one of the players is rated above 2300 (not both!), which in turn means that drawing a 2300 would be okay for inclusion on wikipedia.
2) they don't just have the games played at standard time controls only but also rapid games, blitz games, games from simultaneous exhibitions, even free games, etc, etc.  Dr. Loosmark  20:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, it was just a thought. But maybe if someone doesn't have some games they won in ChessGames, they are probably not notable. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yup, it might be an idea to use Chessgames as a necessary rather than sufficient criteria. Or to put it in words, something like: if a player doesn't have won games on ChessGames they are probably not notable enough, if they have it doesn't automatically mean that they are notable.  Dr. Loosmark  23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Good. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I like that as well, it sounds sensible. SyG (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Knight moves

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I coach my daughter's scholastic chess club. One student just started learning the moves two weeks ago. Yesterday the student asked "Can a knight move like a lower-case L?". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

;-) SyG (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

possible new article

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I want to propose a new article - an opening index, ordered by the moves. List of chess openings goes part of the way, but what I have in mind is an article (mainly a list) that gives the opening moves in some order and links to the Wikipedia article about them. The Oxfod Companion and some opening books do this. It would not have to be nearly as complete as the Oxford Companion (which has about 1300 listings), since it would only link to existing articles. This is a bigger job than I want to take on alone. Is anyone interested? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This exists somehow on WikiBooks at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Opening_Theory ? SyG (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That is not quite what I had in mind. It doesn't seem to give the names and doesn't link to our articles. What I propose would start like this:
What would be the 'ordered by the moves'? In alphabetic order? I think it might be difficult task because of transpositions and long move variations for some opening variations. Then how would the article meet the Wikipedia notability standards? http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Opening_Theory/ECO_volume_C perhaps gives an idea of the article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as notability, it would be like other "list of ..." and index of chess articles. It would not go into the depth of the wikibook you referenced, since it would list and link to only existing articles. As for order, it could go like the Oxford Companion, which is not quite like I gave above. Oxford goes by square and then by piece:
  • 1. a3
  • 1. Na3
  • 1. a4
  • 1. b3
  • 1. b4
  • 1. c3

but this would list only ones that have a Wikipedia article. But so far there isn't much support for the idea. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea is growing on me.
How would the above, perhaps the most numerous opening variations be shown? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for players

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Howdy, What are the notability guidelines for a chess player? Does grandmaster automatically give you WP:N? A different ranking? Joe407 (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally that is it, but some lesser players are notable for being an author, coach, aribter, etc. My opinion is that not all GMs are notable. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit more liberal than Bubba73 in that I think grandmasters represent such a high level that they will have gained attention in local chess press if nothing else, and that an article can be written based on this. For example Chess Life gives reasonably extensive coverage every time an American reaches the GM level. Keep in mind that all articles need to be sourced, and this is especially true for BLPs (where "unsourced" is now an automatic reason to delete). I do not support running bots to create stubs on GMs, but if someone can produce a decent and adequately sourced article on a GM, I will almost certainly support its retention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There aren't that many US grandmasters. There are so many GMs today. When Fischer became a GM, there were about 56. Now there are well over 1,000. OTOH, I don't think an article about a GM has been proposed for deletiion. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD on chess openings (e.g. Stonewall Attack

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Stonewall Attack AfD was closed and the article was kept. No one was for deletion except the nominator. This has come up before and is likely to come up again, for other openings (and even some other chess articles). It even came up for Rules of chess! I think it is a good idea to save a link to the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stonewall_Attack to use it for a precedent if there are similar AfDs. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello!

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 21:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Review of Judit Polgár

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Judit Polgár. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of Ashot Nadanian

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Ashot Nadanian. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Drazen vujacic

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone have a look at Drazen vujacic? I'm not sure if he's notable. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not notable. It needs to be proposed for deletion. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift response. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rest of the world a chess article?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is Rest of the world really a chess article? It has no references and only mentions chess in two short sentences. It's marked as a chess stub, has the wikiproject chess tag on the talk page and is on the index of chess articles shared watchlist. I don't really care about the stub or project tagging, but I'd be happy to see it taken off the index of chess articles. Does anyone think it should stay? Quale (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should not be in the chess project or index of chess articles. There is Russia (USSR) vs Rest of the World, and it should refer to it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD notification

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thomas Pym is listed at AfD. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Pym. wjematherbigissue 14:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sugestion for possible new articles

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello!

What you guys think about Chess in somewhere articles like Chess in China? I think it would be easier to work on chess history if we split by countries with a relevant background for chess. I already created for Spain, German, United Kingdon, Persia, India, Italy, Scandinavia, Arab world, France and Russia in pt:wiki. Chess and something articles are really nice too. Sunnucks's encyclopaedia has Chess and religion, Chess and Royalty and its a good coverage in others chess's encyclopaedias for Chess in art, ballet, postage stamps, etc. Regards! OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea. I've wanted to work on this for a long time, but I'm lazy. If someone else makes a start I might contribute a bit. The current state of chess in China isn't exactly what I think would be best—the articles in Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess are closer to what I think would be good for the encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd encourage anyone to write articles that interest them; these are perfectly valid topics, if sufficient good material can be sourced. My only slight concern is that they will inevitably feel outdated if they rely only on sources from the 1970s and 80s. Noticeably, the more contemporary statements in Chess in China are largely unsourced and it would be a tough task to piece together passages from magazines and newspaper articles, rather than 'run the gauntlet' with respect to original research. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

London Chess Classic

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article London Chess Classic needs updating, as the second edition of this chess festival is currently in progress. I have this year's programme booklet, but most of the details are available at the website. I would update it myself, but I'm not sure how to reorganise it into 2009 and 2010 sections. I could also get more pictures, if anyone wanted to make any requests (would a picture of the subsidiary events be of interest?). Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent request! I now wish I'd bothered to get a ticket - it's just too easy watching the great coverage on the net. The 'gold standard' would be a photo of IM Susan Lalic in the Women's Invitational - they usually allow photos and wandering around for the first five minutes or so in these side events, but if your camera has a silent mode then you can still sneak one from the sidelines later - she rarely plays these days, so this may be our last opportunity for a wiki image. From the FIDE Open, I'd say GMs Alon Greenfeld, Aaron Summerscale and Simon Williams (no photos currently on Commons). Of course, if Korchnoi or Kasparov are there the days you are, then you can't get enough of them - also, the main auditorium with players on the stage and a close up of GM Julian Hodgson (probably in the 'not broadcast' analysis room) would be very useful ... and anything else that looks good; yes the whole FIDE Open from a good vantage point would be excellent. Our pics of McShane (in the Classic) are quite poor (head down and sideways only), so if you can get anywhere near him for a more face-on shot ... Regarding the article, I will re-arrange it if no-one else beats me to it; you're quite correct, it needs a good overhaul for year on year updates. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHS

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I removed this unused link WP:CHS from this WikiProject, as WP:CHESS is much more used. In WikiProject Cultural Heritage of Serbia, CHS will be main and only short link to project. I hope that you will have understanding for this, as it looks like you dont need this at all, while we will need it very very much! Thanks in advance, all best! --WhiteWriter speaks 21:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems OK to me. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine here. Didn't realize WP:CHS directed here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Chess Club

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

If anyone lives in New York near 23 West 10th Street, and has a camera, a photo for Marshall Chess Club would be lovely. Front door, interior, anything would be great. Oh, and on the way out, scream "CHECKMATE!" as loud as you can.

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A kind editor has produced a fine photo of the exterior. An interior shot is still much desired, if anyone is able. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Knight's tour

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The knight's tour is a mathematical problem involving a knight on a chessboard. The knight is placed on the empty board and, moving according to the rules of chess, must visit each square exactly once. A knight's tour is called a closed tour if the knight ends on a square attacking the square from which it began (so that it may tour the board again immediately with the same path). Otherwise the tour is open. The depicted tour is an open tour, with shaded squares denoting where the knight has already visited.Animation: Ilmari Karonen
Archive – More featured pictures...

The Knight's tour animation is Today's featured picture today so may like to keep a watch on the Knight's tour and other related articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Great ! (and a happy new year !) SyG (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

10 years ago

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is probably the first article on chess on Wikipedia, about 10 years ago. You've come a long way, baby ! SyG (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is really interesting. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice, but the oldest chess-related article is Anatoly Karpov created five months before chess. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Pal Benko died?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone have information that Pal Benko died? Twice it has been put in his article, but we can find no verification of it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still haven't seen any confirmation. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not think he died. On 15th January ChessBase published an article with problems he composed, so maybe some people figured it was an eulogy or something. SyG (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Grand Slam Chess Association

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I've come across the Grand Slam Chess Association, along with the template {{Grand Slam Chess}} and noticed they list different tourneys. Which is right? Thanks, --JaGatalk 00:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they list the same tourneys. Tata Steel Chess Tournament was formerly known as Corus Wijk aan Zee, but they are the same competition. The template just needs to be updated.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Women's World Championship

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I created a template as for the men : Template:Women's World Chess Championships and a article for the upcoming 2011 championship. Have a look and correct any mistakes you may find. Thanks. -Koppapa (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well done, thanks ! SyG (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Zukertort's death

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An editor recently tried to change Zukertort's cause of death in the article World Chess Championship 1886, rightly pointing out that 'Stroke/Heart Attack' contradicts the Johannes Zukertort page, which gives 'Cerebral Haemhorrage'. The editor was reverted - I imagine he gave no reason for choosing one over the other.

It would be better if we could be consistent on this, nonetheless.

I can see that the Encyclopedias by Sunnucks and Golombek both go for the haemhorrage, whereas Kings of Chess by Hartston and The Oxford Companion To Chess by Hooper and Whyld, both support Stroke/Heart Attack. Two other sources I checked (Schonberg and Horowitz) don't give the cause of death.

Anyone have any other reliable sources? It would be interesting to see what the relevant, contemporary 1888 British Chess Magazine reported. Does anyone have access to scanned versions - presumably they're not copyrighted any more? Are there any other suggestions for resolving the contradiction? Brittle heaven (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The only other reference I have is An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess by Edward Brace, and it doesn't give a cause of death. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

New article: Outline of chess

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This new article (Outline of chess) is similar to index of chess articles, except that it is organized into an outline (of chess). It isn't going to list all chess articles (not every biography, every tournament article, etc). You might want to help flesh out this article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check for Broken External links on all Chess World Champion pages

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Aside from the removal of my Youtube annotated games yesterday, please check for broken links on the Chess World champion pages. The Capablanca page has a broken link now to my old www.chessclub.demon.co.uk server now in the External links section. But perhaps there are other broken links on these very important world champion pages. I hope that all Chess world champion pages can be checked by you guys. I think Wiki chess is a fantastic reference which I often praise in my videos, and even if my videos are disallowed in the External links section, I would just like to say it is a fantastic chess resource overall. Kingscrusher (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Video annotations on youtube of games of famous players removed

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Quale has removed all my Youtube video links yesterday which I added, and more from before. Now these were individual playlist links which my friend JessicaFischerqueen was compiling for me. E.g. I am working on a Bronstein playlist here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0DB4C778C29411CA I think my videos are of high quality, and do not breach copyright. I am a Youtube partner, as well as being a FIDE CM (was over 2200 many years back), also a British Regional master, and a Chessbase presenter on Tuesday evenings. My ECF is 199, and FIDE currently about 2150. May I ask for the permission to have my Youtuybe playlists reinstated from the World champion pages please?! Also, he removed my edit correction of an external link to a Capablanca Biography which was originally on chessclub.demon.co.uk (and is now currently a broken link after the indescriminate destuction of all my past Wiki contributions by Quale yesterday). The new Capablanca bio page is at: http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/culture/worldchampions/capablanca/capablanca.htm because I had to move server from chessclub.demon.co.uk to gtryfon.demon.co.uk. I have done several bios on World champions before Wiki even existed on the Internet at: http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/culture/culturemain.htm The Capablanca Wiki page in question is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ra%C3%BAl_Capablanca - was it not noted by Quale that the original current link is currently broken?! Kingscrusher (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't add links to videos in which you yourself appear, as that is a conflict of interest; see specifically this part of our External links policy. Quale was correct to revert your edits. It's up to other editors, not yourself, as to whether they are appropriate links, so let's hear some opinions. Myself, I don't think they are notable enough, sorry.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Annotated games add value IMHO to the World champion pages. What videos do I appear - you mean annotating the games in question with commentary?! I am a FIDE CM as well - and I am a little confused by the objection. Kingscrusher (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It's unfortunate because it sounds like I am disparaging the quality and value of your work when I say that it is my opinion that your video links are not appropriate for wikipedia biographies. I greatly appreciate the work that people do at wikipedia and elsewhere to increase the understanding, enjoyment and popularity of chess. I don't think the links are appropriate in the specific context of wikipedia. My primary concerns are the appearance of self promotion and the self-published nature of the works. Self-published sources are problematic as they are not subject to any editorial review or control. I don't think your credentials as a CM are sufficient to support analysis of the play of world champions or elite GMs. Quale (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes of course I mean your annotations. Don't split hairs, the point is you are contributing to the videos, which as I said, and you completely ignored, means it is a conflict of interest and you yourself should not be adding them to Wikipedia - no matter what your strength as a player.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Pawnkingthree May I suggest you seem to be abusing term "Conflicts of interest" for a completely trivial issue of me creating the video and being interested afterwards in making people aware of it. I spend like hours each day trying to create quality videos, and you are using this term for my motive of increasing interest in my work?! Now seriously, applying such term to say critical financial matters or matters actually of some consequence seems to me less abuse of this conceptual term. Does Youtube which is owned by Google provide a "Conflict of interest" platform when they encourage the Video contributors to also actively promote their videos. Seriously - and you talk about splitting hairs?! Yes I guess I wanted to share my energy for annotating a game, but now apparently thats a "Conflict of interest". I guess Bronstein shouldn't have written the "Sorcerer's apprentice" and asked someone else to annotate his games because he would be biased in his game selection and analysis. This term "Conflicts of Interests" seems to be being used in very strange contexts. Kingscrusher (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting your own work, which is what you are doing by linking to videos that you have contributed to. Did you read any of the articles I linked to? Wikipedia:External links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, says "in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide." That is precisely what is happening here. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you must follow our policies and guidelines.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
May I clarify then from a theoretical perspective (and let's also delve into the theory underlying "conflicts of interest" and "self advertising") - if some of my Youtube subscribers thought my player list pages were good, and they put the links on Wiki - e.g. the Bronstein playlist on the Bronstein page, then that would be okay?! Or is that on the assumption that I did not nudge or bias them in anyway to do so?! Here is an example scenario for you: Would I be allowed to mention Wiki chess players in a video and mention that maybe some of my playlists could be good for an external link?! Would that be biasing someone else to do it on my behalf?! See the thing is - how do you celebrate a chess player from the past !? For me it is from annotated games mainly. And the best way of annotating games nowadays is from videos. Do you agree with that logic about annotations first before I continue this theoretical discussion about bias which is the underlying premise here about "Conficts of Interest". I will accept if you think the term can be applied when there is no financial or other major risk as a consequence (i.e. no major "motive"). However, when it seems that you are implying because I put my own playlist link it is unacceptable but if someone else had done, then it would have been okay, then this seems like "splitting hairs", essentially when there is no major underlying motive for the conflict of interest - except offering free video annotated games which would IMHO add a lot of value to the Wiki Chess player pages.
Well I Invite you Quale to check out my last Bronstein video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWieefTVvlo and then talk about quality. Here is what someone commented: "The most professionally done chess videos on the internet, period. Even chess websites which offer "premium" videos pale in comparison to your analysis kingscrusher.Tryfon, a job well done. It is appreciated by all of your followers, I guarantee it." and this was thumbs upped 20 times. People enjoy my videos. I have nearly 8000 subscribers now and growing on the channel. Being a Youtube partner means I can do videos longer than the standard 12 minutes or whatever it is - this one is nearly 30 minutes in length. I make use of cutting edge engines to support tactical variations - Rybka and Houdini. My positional intuition is strong - I am often beating IMs and even GMs on ICC even whilst doing live commentary. You say I'm not good enough to comment on World champion Games - of course not. I don't claim to be. However I specialise in trying to bring games to life through video annotations which for me is the most exciting way of doing it, rather than textual commentary. I have done more than 2000 videos on youtube - I would recommend you check the reactions on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do5IhtWxTjU Now there were objections in 2006 to the Anand videos, and I agreed I shouldn't be adding loads of links, and I agreed I wasn't FIDE titled. Since that time, I have discovered the value of a single Playlist link - so no "link farm" effect. And also I am now officially FIDE titled as well as having a British title of "Regional Master". So unless you think IMs or GMs are going to start video annotating games with the same energy passion, and enthusiasm as me, why can't it be considered as a short term measure to carry my playlist links to properly celebrate players of the past ?! Thanks anyway for providing this discussion mechanism here. Kingscrusher (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm in favour of adding links to webpages or videos that really add value to an article. To determine if they add value they would have to be checked on a case by case basis. So I think it's best dealt with on the talk page of the appropriate articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

To start with I would like to praise the quality of Kingscrusher’s videos. As a subscriber I have found them to be of the highest standard with insightful contributions to both the study of chess and to its history.

With regards to Pawnkingthree’s criticism, that inserting a link to these videos constitutes a conflict of interest, I’m afraid I must respectfully disagree. Pawnkingthree claims that one, “shouldn't add links to videos in which you yourself appear.” This however is not Wikipedia’s stance. In the page conflict of interest under the subheading “Citing oneself” Wikipedia makes clear that,

“Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies.”

From this we can conclude that individuals are in fact permitted to provide links to their own work on the condition the link is relevant and that one has expertise in that particular field. This principle is self evident, after all if a world renowned historian were to edit a history page it would be absurd to prevent him citing his own work merely on the grounds that he had written it!

I would argue that Kingscrusher’s work is entirely relevant to the pages on which links have been posted. It is difficult to see how one could argue that annotated Bronstein games are not relevant to page about Bronstein! Furthermore holding titles as a FIDE Candidate Master and British Regional Master more than justifies the term “professional expertise”.

Therefore if we conclude that the links are relevant and Kingscrusher does have enough expertise to provide a useful contribution then it is not only senseless to remove his links but also against Wikipedia’s own policies.

O.Twentyman (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

History of Chess and Chaturanga

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There have been several edits across all the wikipedia chess related pages involving the game Chaturanga. I was wanting some help as regards the sources being used. My main interest is in the Chinese chess Xiangqi#History section.

There ar claims that a chinese game Liubo which dramatically predates chaturanga. History of board games is tricky but the time line of chess would suggest a common proto-game Chaturaji sounds very similar to Liubo. There is an argument that the invention went in the other direction.

I'd like to get confirmation from better sources but these are rare i.e. British Museum Library or Bodlean Library which I am not currently near. So I would like to know if anyone has seen any of the books cited to see if they contain evidence or are just speculation. As clearly a book title with chess can be argued to have a point of view, definitely a clean up is needed.Tetron76 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Biographies and people in categories

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#Biographies and people in categories

I am hoping to build guidelines for notability criteria for what makes someone notable in the games field i.e. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Curling. Especially games players that I feel needs to have a section similar to the sports and athletes. An example of a question that has just arisen is does winning the first scrabble world championship count as just WP:Oneevent. Combined contribution issues also need defining.

The other conversation is do we want to have category inclusion criteria does a certain threshold need to be met before we add someone to Category:Chess players. Should Ben Afleck count as a poker player?Tetron76 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed here several times in the past and people have shown quite a bit of enthusiasm for proposing strict rules about what chess bios are notable. I'm probably the only person in WP:CHESS who feels this way, but I've never been too enthusiastic about developing special inclusion criteria for chess players. I think WP:N and more specifically WP:ATHLETE are good enough. Although there are certainly disagreements, generally chess bios that go to WP:AFD are decided by clear consensus. No consensus keeps are rare and in fact we don't have very many chess bios sent to AFD to begin with. Both factors suggest to me that standard inclusion criteria are satisfactory. As far as category inclusion goes, we try to keep chess hobbyists from being added to Category:Chess biographies. They are added from time to time, but we remove them when we find them and there's never been any fuss. For both the chess bio notability and category inclusion questions, I don't see a problem that needs solving. I am perfectly happy to let sleeping dogs lie. Chess is both a game and a sport which probably changes things a bit. Perhaps the situation is different in the larger world of games players. Quale (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't really looking for strict rules, but there are issues of how you interpret words such as major and sportspeople which places even serious games like chess in a "grey area". questions can arise such as whether a website that you are relying on is primary? i would like to have certain things such as say Grandmaster in chess where only verification is needed to show notability. The idea is that you find RS that state being a chess grandmaster is important, then only a source is needed to be verification. This treats the title as the same as winning an award in say a creative field.
My concern is that often you find feature pieces where the best player gets a one line mention "the competition was won by 3 time world champion" and the main article is following a beginner. This means that it establishes 1 of the 2 articles for GNG for the beginner but doesn't count for the expert.
While I imagine that common sense should prevail, publishing books on topic with covers detailing achievements may not count as RS. Similarly it may be that writing a column in a paper is not recognised despite being able to produce the article. I am not trying to say anyone who doesn't meet our criteria can't get an article for chess nor am I saying anyone who meets them has to have an article. But it would make deletion and creation discussion much easier. It would also make it easier when finding a player like
Yosef Dobkin to decide what action to take. There are many more questionable profiles than you are probably aware of and they tend to get blanket nominations.Tetron76 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that there are many more WP:AFD discussions on chess biographies than I am aware of. I keep a reasonably close watch on around 3500 articles related to chess, and most chess AFDs are mentioned on Chess articles listed for deletion. Quale (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
if you remove the notability tags without discussion it makes it difficult to resolve these issues. From working my way through the chess pages there are a significant number of articles that do not come close to meeting the WP:BIO bearing in mind that WP:ATHLETE rightly or wrongly doesn't include chess players. There is not even necessarily an acceptance that even a chess grandmaster is not WP:ONEEVENT( I am not in this camp). There are I am sure many articles where the issue has been that no one has bothered to find the WP:RS. These have to show notabilty verifiability is not sufficient here. Verifiability would only be sufficient for WP:ANYBIO #2. If you think these nominations come one at a time you want to look into RPG AfDsTetron76 (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
On one hand, I personally think that there are too many biographies of relatively minor chess players, even if they are grandmasters. There are so many grandmasters now that I don't think every one is necessarily notable. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, every major league baseball player, every professional US football player, and every professional US basketball player has a page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me?
You may realize this, but I did not remove all the notability tags you added. When I did remove the tag I tried to indicate in the edit summary the reason, although I may have missed a few because quite frankly it was a lot of work to revert the very many bad changes you had made. You had asked about notability for chess players earlier on this page, and as I replied then there isn't a universally agreed set of criteria. Bubba73 takes a more narrow view of this than I do, and he's not alone. Personally I find national chess champions to be notable, but not everyone agrees. I also find Chess Olympiad competitors to be notable, but this is even more controversial. If you feel strongly about any or all of the notability tags I removed you can add them back. I won't knowingly remove them a second a time. You can also take two or three chess bios to WP:AFD as a trial. (Please don't nominate 10 or 20 articles at once until you've tested the waters to see if this is likely to be profitable, even if you see people do this sometimes.) In short although the policies and guidelines are very important, I often simply consider whether I think an article makes wikipedia better or worse. I guess I see more value in those bios of minor chess players than Bubba73 does. Also I don't think that RPG AFDs have much to do with chess. Chess is not Pokemon. Quale (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess/Archive_19&oldid=1140238128"